I suspect that many such observers do not realise how long it can take to write a judgement, especially where there might be substantial issues of fact and law to determine.

The art of writing a judgement is to explain fully how the verdict was arrived at, what evidence was accepted, what was disregarded and why, and to answer the questions about the verdict which the appeal court or appellate tribunal will ask, even before they are asked.

We have waited almost four weeks for the decision.

However Lord Nimmo Smith has “previous” for taking longer than observers think he should to issue a decision.

He issued his decision on 31st May 2005. This covered thirty days of evidence, twelve days of submissions and 85,000 pages of documents.

In the case Lord Nimmo Smith rejected Mrs McTear’s claim that her husband’s death from lung cancer was the fault of Imperial Tobacco.

His decision runs to 569 pages in Session Cases and over 350,000 words (longer even than my blog posts!)

It is little surprise that it took him over a year after the final submissions to produce the decision, especially as he was still engaged in other cases during the time he was at “Avizandum”. (By the way, that is not a night club or holiday resort for judges, but rather the Scottish term for the court having reserved judgement.)

However questions had been asked about the “delay” and this occasioned Lord Nimmo Smith convening a calling of the case to explain precisely why there was such a delay. This was prompted by Allan Wilson MSP having written to His Lordship calling for an explanation.

A LETTER from a politician about a historic damages case led yesterday to a furious judge reporting a senior lawyer for possible disciplinary action.

Allan Wilson, MSP, wrote to Lord Nimmo Smith about the time he has taken to give a ruling on a widow’s claim for compensation from a tobacco firm for the death of her husband from lung cancer.

In an amazing and angry outburst at the woman’s QC, Colin McEachran, who had suggested that she contact her MSP, the judge said he found the situation “reprehensible”.

Lord Nimmo Smith took it as implying that he was not properly performing his duties. He accused Mr McEachran of thinking he knew better than the judge how to do his job, and suggested the QC had brought himself and his professional body, the Faculty of Advocates, into disrepute.

Mr McEachran insisted that he had merely given advice to contact an MSP, not that there should be direct communication with the judge. On being told by Lord Nimmo Smith that the matter was to be referred to the Faculty of Advocates, Mr McEachran commented: “As your Lordship pleases.”

…

The parties were called to a hearing before the judge yesterday. He said that on 18 November – the day he began to preside over (a) murder trial in the High Court – he received a letter from Mr Wilson, Labour MSP for Cunninghame North. The politician asked why there had been no decision in Mrs McTear’s case. A reply was sent, indicating that discussion with third parties was not possible.

Lord Nimmo Smith said there was a convention, aimed at maintaining judicial independence, that politicians did not intervene in current cases. He said the court could not allow itself to be, or appear to be, influenced by third parties.

He had no doubt that Mr Wilson had written in good faith, but he continued: “What I find reprehensible is that Mr Wilson should have become involved at all. This can only have been designed to put pressure on me to issue my decision sooner than I might otherwise do… I regard this as wholly improper. The clear implication is I have not been applying myself as diligently as I should to my judicial duties.”

Lord Nimmo Smith said he had given up a week’s leave to work on the judgment, and already had a draft of more than 860 pages and 250,000 words. He had other judicial commitments and had indicated in July that he might not be able to produce the judgment until late in the year.

He asked Mr McEachran: “What on earth is this all about?”

Mr McEachran said the litigation had started almost 12 years ago and Mrs McTear was entitled to have her case determined “within a reasonable time”.

He had learned that his client had become unhappy about the administration of justice, and he suggested that she write to her MSP.

“It was as broad as that. I did not suggest that any communication be made directly to your Lordship,” said Mr McEachran.

Lord Nimmo Smith said Mr McEachran seemed to think he knew better than the judge how to do his job. What should he have done, that he had not done?

“I have no comment on that,” said Mr McEachran.

The judge added: “I am not a magician. I cannot wave a magic wand and produce an opinion [judgment].”

For the avoidance of doubt, this person has a magic wand and is therefore NOT Lord Nimmo Smith – although he may have said the magic word – “AVIZANDUM!”

He believed Mr McEachran was not being candid with him in “this entire shenanigan” and the matter would be reported to the Faculty of Advocates.

———————————————————–

Now, I do not expect that the SPL Commission will take until April 2014 to issue a decision, and indeed the rumours abound that the judgement in the Rangers case is imminent, but, as one always says to clients who ask how long a decision will take to be issued “how long is a piece of string?”

(I do realise that that is a particularly unhelpful answer, but having once had a tangential involvement in a case where it took the presiding Sheriff almost a year to issue a four page judgement – the scurrilous suggestion being that they had lost the notebook in which all their notes had been taken – there is no such thing as a time limit for a decision.)

(As an aside, what should one do if a decision seems to be taking too long? As Lord Nimmo Smith made clear, getting an MSP to write to the judge is NOT a good idea! Instead the suggestion is that a letter should go, in the case of a Sheriff, to the Sheriff Principal who can inquire into the matter and raise it with the Sheriff. This is seen as very much a last resort. Sheriffs and judges are human and, even though there would be no possibility of this happening, one would want to avoid even the slightest chance that, subconsciously, the judge could take against the person who has “complained” about them).

Bearing in mind that the three members of the panel are all eminent jurists, and all are undoubtedly busy with things other than the SPL Commission, it would be a fine effort should their written decision be released imminently.

261 responses to “Q – Why The Delay In The Verdict of the Nimmo Smith Commission? A – This Is Not a Delay”

I actually had great sympathy for Mrs McTear and Allan Wilson MSP.
I believe they were right to protest.
Justice delayed can be justice denied.
While a judgment can take a long time to write I believe a year is excessive.
Lord Nimmo Smith obviously had too big a workload.
I have spoken before about the overstretched justice system and I maintain that LNS must have been overburdened by work if he is unable to produce a judgment in a timeous manner.
I believe Mrs McTear’s lawyer should have pointed out that the letter to the judge should be seen as making the political case for more Lord Nimmo Smiths – not as an attack on his rectitude.

latest news Peter Lawwell has lost his credit card, for over 8 weeks, reports coming in, say Charlie has been using it. Peter was then asked why he did not report it, he said he was not to botherd about it who every had found it, spends less a month than his wife.

I don’t get the issue with Phil Mac Giolla Bhain being blatantly
anti-Rangers.

There are lots of journalists who are blatantly anti-Labour, anti-Tory, anti-SNP, anti-Socialist, anti-Europe, anti-this and anti-that.

Many make a fine living out of it and are “respected” journalists working for the most prominent media organisations in the UK.

Does the fact Mac Giolla Bhain is anti-Rangers automatically destroy the credibility of the information he presents?

I don’t often state something as a fact but I am willing to stick my neck out and say that all journalists and news gatherers are intrinsically biased – very often subconsciously.

I actually prefer a bit of honesty, although that is often difficult as many people do not even recognise they are intellectually bound by their own innate preconceptions.

Has Mac Giolla Bhain ever admitted he is anti-Rangers?

I hope he has.

That would promote him to a journalistic pedestal in my book as the bulk of the media try to hide behind the illusion of “integrity” and “balance”.

That illusion has often been swept asunder.

One of my favourites was when the BBC were reporting the miners’ strike in the early 1980’s and years later it was found the “journalists” had edited the footage to make it look as if the picketers initially charged the police at the battle of Orgreave – rather than the other way round.

The spoken narrative also affirmed this falsehood.

I would have much preferred if the BBC journalists had been honest and simply admitted they were anti-trade unionist, anti-Scargill, middle-class Oxbridge graduates before airing the manipulated footage.

Apologies for meandering. Had a few drinks.

I think I had a really good point when I started writing this but I can’t actually remember or articulate what it is any more.

Speaking of editing footage, that reminds me of the sickening edit by the BBC of Ally McCoist smirking when being asked about the behaviour of Old Firm fans, something which they were forced to apologise profusely over.

Not withstanding that, im glad that you accept that when you are biased then everything you say, show or write about, should be taken with extreme suspicion as it wont always show the true picture.

Den February 17, 2013 at 11:52 am
GWG
Get a grip.
If you want to have a go at someone, keep it in proportion and get the right targets.
If you were implying Maggie is a troll then you are so far off that I wonder if you have read any of her posts. The misogynistic comments were not clever and definitely not funny.
If you can contribute anything near the level of Maggie you will be a valuable contributor to this blogg, at the moment you are closer to the troll community in terms of content.

Huh~~~~ ME a TROLL!! You obviously haven’t seen any of the work(s) I do on behalf of the Internet Bampots Confederation who are pledged to expose all cover ups and dastardly deeds done by the Masonic / Orange cabal that have ruled over decent & HONEST football clubs and supporters since 1872… Who have indeed used the media for decades to front their immoral and bigoted ways on those that are not of their persuasion ….. NOW the shoe is on the other foot and it’s our turn to squeeze yer baws…. And squeeze we will. So I’d rather you called me just a simple Internet Bampot!!

But to your point of my contribution ~~~ that’s the very point I was making , every “Factual” post that is made on here by (and I say it again) some excellent posters is immediately rubbished and ridiculed by the THREE REAL TROLLS!! and “others” I don’t need lecturing by you or the Mrs Wuman I’ve been about these forums since 1492 and know a TROLL when I read one. If you want to debate the “FACTS” then do so and produce the evidence to back up your bizarre claims.

It’s noticeable that the FACT I made last night that the manager of The Tribute Act club is the REAL cause of your club being liquated yet no one has disputed that FACT!! Does that mean I am correct?

I stated out that your contribution to the blogg was closer in quality to that of the trolls than it is to Maggies. Your reply has done nothing to change my view.

I didn’t call you a troll and will not be referring to you as an Internet Bampot either unless you change your screen name.

If you care to check my posts I have been more critical of the activities of the trolls than almost anyone on here. I think the people I have criticised are the same ones as you had a go at, with the obvious exception of Maggie. I express my views less vehemently than you but no less clearly I think.

I am in agreement about there being many good posters on here also, that is why I read and post on here. Many of the posters on here merely ignore the trolls and concentrate on the quality of their own contribution. I believe that has hurt the trolls more than throwing back the same rubbish as they spew.

I will present facts to back up my “bizarre claims” when you point out what these claims are.

My club hasn’t been liquidated, for clarity I am not a Rangers fan by any stretch.

Then a thousand pardons for assuming you were a Sevcorian
But nevertheless I am what I am and what I said was not “just” aimed at you but to those that constantly rubbish the truth
Maggie~~~ if you look at the posts you may find a bit of humour is implied and no malice is meant, I suppose it’s how one views them

@GWG
Everything about that answer is SO like a Carson or
Cam reply, and the stock answer of the racist/homophobe/sexist/bigot
when caught bang to rights….. Oh I was kidding,sense of humour
failure etc. Puh lease spare me any more of your idiocy.

@Den
re GWG,I fear he will have to join carson in remedial reading
class. Reading for information NOT his strong point if he thinks
I’m a Sevconian.
If I’m a Sevconian then so is Neil Lennon.
The content and style of his posts most definitely scream Troll,
as they have more in common with Carson,Willy Wonka etc
in terms of insults and rudeness.
That last paragraph of his proves my point re reading for information.
Neither you nor I,nor anyone else disputed his fact that Sally was
the cause of the Rangers’ demise because we agree with him,because
WE DO NOT SUPPORT RANGERS !!!!!!!
God Den,it’s hard work sometimes trying to deal with this level of
idiocy,understandable when it’s Carson,but unfathomable when it’s
from someone who you’d expect to mostly agree with.

I will not say too much as I am awaiting what evidence GWG has of my ‘bizarre claims and “rubbishing the truth”.

One paragraph in particular was pure Cam, and the word bizarre is out of Sevco Central book of hyperbole.

I have a little problem with his fact that McCoist was the cause of Rangers demise. He certainly was a factor but the deed was achieved through the efforts of many. Murray presided over years of profligate spending, the press were complicit, the fans complacent, the board incompetent or lazy, the banks were far too generous, Whyte and his like tried to fiddle their way out of trouble and many more. I think it was a team effort. I guess these are bizarre claims and I am rubbishing the truth.

Thanks for the reality check Paul, a great insight into the task that LNS has infront of him, and a reminder that the same goes for BDO who have a lot more on their plate to deal with. Though i wonder if they will handle it piecemeal style ?? ,,,,,, in particular here i’m thinking of the governance of RFC during the short dramatic Whyte era, (not the takeover … see next)
Paul has previously written a brilliant piece on this …..(recommended read)

Not so though the StrathClyfe Police investigation into CW and the takeover of RFC which my understanding is, takes precedence (over BDO enquiry ,,,, can you comment Paul if this in fact the case ?)
I have no idea what lines of enquiry they are following but i would hope that they are looking at Sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006: Fraud by false representation and fraud by failing to disclose information ….

2Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a)the person making the representation, or

(b)any other person.

(4)A representation may be express or implied.

(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b)intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

And of course this applies to my initial comments and Pauls earlier post referred to regarding Corporate Governance ……..

And finally, what about Ken Olverman, Financial Controller of Rangers FC plc. and his role in all of this who seems to remain under the radar in all of this ……. (refer back to Pauls earlier post and the dialogue between Whyte and King)
But as an addition to that a reminder of the following information that surfaced ……

In August 2011, Olverman was contacted by HMRC, who were verifying invoices provided to them by Ticketus showing large amounts of VAT paid by Rangers. Olverman had no knowledge of these VAT payments, and when he saw the invoices “he was of the view that it appeared as though ‘Clip Art’ computer processes had been involved in their creation… Having sight of the invoices confirmed his view even further that they had not been created within the finance office of Rangers FC.”

That worries me, untrained in the arts of financial control. So what did Olverman, a member of the august Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland do? ……… Nothing: …… He did not inform any of the current directors of Rangers FC of the matter.

@newtz
An interesting and enlightening post,great to see what has actually
to be proved or disproved re criminal activities.
We haven’t heard enough about this aspect of things,maybe because
of sub judice. Check me out,using my new found legal skills and
vocab Thanks Mr Mc Conville.

and to wrap up my previous post on Goverance and Mr Ken Olverman , and to try and add some further insight into Pauls previous post regarding Ally’s claim that RFC were the victims ……

pasting directly from the DETERMINATION: DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNALTHE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB plc and MR CRAIG WHYTE
…….

[Start of Paste]
Mr Ken Olverman was also aware of an apparently unusual transaction involving Ticketus which had a substantial significance in the exercise of any fiduciary duty which he, as a senior officer of the company, owed towards thecompany, rather than owed towards Mr Craig Whyte.

The question might be “What could they do?”. The answer is “They could have made public the activities of Mr Craig Whyte of which they were aware or ought to have been aware

Their fiduciary duties owed to the company might for example have led them to disclose to the PLUS Stock Exchange that no accounts were likely or that no AGM was likely to be held on account of the conduct of Mr Craig Whyte and that there was a complete breakdown of the corporate governance of RangersFC

These are matters which did not determine the liability of Rangers FC but which bore upon the question as to what extent it could, with merit, claim that it was powerless, and that the sole responsibility was that of Mr Craig Whyte.

[End of Paste]

So there you have it, RANGERS ARE NOT VICTIMS, their failure of Corporate Goverance makes them complicit in their own downfall

@newtz what has hapPened to the lord hodge enquiries was there not fraudulent practises involved here to or to say more academically malpractice why green and no 1else your last post is very interesting should fans be calling for a police investigation in to murrays time whytes time and now green and how he became the owner ??

@mick
I think the Lord Hodge enquiry into D&P will follow
along the lines of the LNS enquiry as explained by Paul.
Probably Lord Hodge still working on the judgement before
presenting his findings.I can’t imagine they’ll be good news
for D&P tho’.
We could be on here for years yet mick.:-)

well if thats the case a will have to invest in a new key board as the amount of clattering a do this 1 will be on the blink soon years with yous on here would be fine for me as a have never meet a nicer bunch on line in my life

I suspect that Lord Hodge has opened a can of worms with D&P. I guess he doesn’t know where to stop on their antics.

They were ‘unconventional’ administrators, making it up as they went along is being kind. Trading at a huge loss in administration is unheard of. That is the least of it. Looks like they made a real pig’s ear of the disposal of assets, the IPO makes it clear that the assets were worth vastly more than they got.

They were involved in advising on Whyte’s takeover , had agreed a cut and shut administration with him and Mr Grier has some explaining to do over the Whyte tapes.

I mentioned the Ticketus invoicing. And there is much more.

I hope New Rangers don’t go bust for a long time, I couldnt deal with two lots of revelations at once, then they can go bust if they deserve to.

u sure dupe if i were u i would be havin a word with these guys about their info, bearing in mind there are plenty out there that think craigie is wandering about with a crushed fag packet in his pocket that says charge and edmiston drive on it.!!!!

mighty suspicious u say two charges but these guys say 1, u say two discharged these guys say none, nearly nine months on from when u think they were discharged.

It’s all available online if you want to check – although you may have to patya couple of quid to download from companies house.
The Kelvinside memorial Trust securities were discharged – you can see reference to this on the oldco’s entry on companies house – there are discharges recorded in April and May 2012. D&P’s report of 5th April 2012 mentioned these securities, and confirmed that the obligations they secured actually expired in October 2009, and that steps were being taken to discharge the securities (para 14.5 and 14.11)

The Scottish Sports Council security was registered with the Land Register on 11th January 2002, and with companies house (for the oldco) on 18th January 2002. That can be checked either by looking at the oldco’s securities as part of the downloadable information, or by checking the Land Register – Auchenhowie/Murray Park has title reference DMB65871.

When Green’s company bought the assets, the kelvinside memorial trust securities were discharged (or had already been discharged by D&P).

The Sports Council security wasn’t discharged, and the asset (Auchenhowie) was acquired subject to this security. That can be checked with reference to the newco’s security section which is part of the downloadable information, where you’ll see reference to a MG06s confirming the acquiring of property subject to a security.

If you download the MG06s, you’ll find it relates to Auchenhowie, and confirms the charge was created on 11th January 2002, and the asset was acquired with the charge by newco on 15th June 2012 (the MG06s itself is dated 6th July 2012.)

good work d if u r comfortable fine maybe worth dropping a line to get the discharges door score opened. would recommend sticking the company on monitor too if you havent already done so get a wee heads up when some of these seedy capital boys are closing in.

Ah Rabbie,its guid tae see ye tak an interest in yon muckle club fae Govan.
Lizzie’s chapman billies came a calling and sat in Auld Reekie and gave us a guid result,,,,2-1 tae the Queens eleven.
The judges were pros mind you,not guys doon the boozers wi a hard on fur justice Celtic style.
The big boys fae Govan will tak their lumps and then cum a calling and this wee spot in Europe will see the blue,blue sea of Ibrox wash over aw the pash and cleanse the infidels.
The Bogus Tax Case disnae hing oer the club noo and the fans can pitch in and see their money stay in the pockets of gods children.
Chico is a transient moment in the history of the Gers and the pain that aw the haters feel is feeding the Bears.
We are the people and we are everywhere.

Mags , why do you continue to refer to my good self when you have stated many times you are going to ignore me ? As the song goes ” just can’t get enough ” you’ll know the rest ! I am beginning to think your a wee bit of an attention seeker .

there seems to be a move on and it is more than likely Lord nimo will find Rangers for doing wrong, and by doing this might give the SFA a life line
the reason, could have been already in play, there where 4 options I believe open to Rangers, one was a fine the next was a suspension for 12 months
the third was a ban from the Scottish cup, and the fourth was of course a termination of the club now the way i see it they gave them the 12 month ban, that was to happen if they where parachuted into the first division as that back fired, so they have had that one, and it is up, the fine cant be used unless there is money coming from the BDO guys then going to the SFA, the termination is not going to go as it was said it was to severe
so what we do have is the ban from the Scottish cup but what year
will lord nimo wait till there is a fresh new year to announce his verdict giving
THE SFA time to set the Scottish cup ban up, and with the new structure will there be a by in it for some team. can some one answer this was it
£22 million raised or £17 million raised or is it the other 22 million shares issued or 17 million shares issued and if its shares maybe that is where the missing money is. as i think it was £500= 700 shares some one do the maths

Unless I misinterpreted this post and am much mistaken the penalties/consequences you list are part but not all that were available to the SFA commission that sat on judgement of bringing the game into disrepute. For which the transfer embargo, which wasn’t an option, was originally applied and then reapplied to Sevco as part of the 5 way agreement.

I agree with your rationale on the fine as it would only be paid at pennies in the pound based on what BDO could collect and would therefore only adversely affect other creditors. I know the announcement will not be delayed so that FA Cup bans can be applied. The wording would just be altered akin to “the next x cup competitions for which they are eligible”. They are no longer eligible for this seasons having been removed by the Terrors.

Hi Paul,
Once Lord Nimmo Smith’s verdict is reached & made public it will interesting to read the various ‘summarised versions’ that will appear from interested bodies. I look forward to reading your own as it should highlight the important area’s of evidence used and the reasons why in the reaching of the Decision & from you I think we will get a balanced view, not one that will attempt to sell newspapers.